Last Days for White Protestants?

Seizing upon data that reveals that white Protestants comprise less than a third of Americans—and that white Christians weigh in at just 47 percent of the population—Robert Jones proclaims the death of White Christian America. Jones, who founded and runs the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), catalogs the sins of Christianity and Country, and offers little practical advice to reverse the downturn in religion’s standing. Jones ignores the fact that Christianity is facing an overall decline in the West, and that the drop in church attendance and affiliation is not uniquely American.

Nonetheless the author deserves a serious hearing. As one would expect, the book is overtly political in tone and thrust, and its release coincided with this summer’s political conventions. What makes The End of White Christian Americanoteworthy is its battery of statistics that document the rise of the religiously unaffiliated—aka “nones”—as an identifiable current.

According to PRRI, religious nones are the single largest religious subgroup among millennials (34 percent), ahead of white Christians (30 percent), and nonwhite Christians (29 percent). Nowadays, about a quarter of all Americans lack a religious affiliation, while the latest presidential polls show that Hillary Clinton’s coalition is driven by minorities, women, college graduates, and the religiously unaffiliated. Although its title is an overstatement, The End of White Christian America is a book for our times.

To be sure, these demographic realities did not emerge suddenly. The decline of Mainline Protestantism has been on display for nearly a half-century, the question of whether anyone really cared has been ignored for nearly just as long, and these are not singularly American phenomena. Five years ago, members of the Church of England observed that the Church was “impeccably” managing itself into failure, and would no longer be “functionally extant” by 2031. The End of White Christian America does not dispel that conclusion.

Indeed, the God is Dead movement of the 1960s found its theological portal through the German-American Paul Tillich, a Lutheran, French Protestant Gabriel Vahanian, and the mainline seminaries. Looking back, the times really were a changing.

In Jones’ telling, the eclipse of Mainline Protestantism coincided with—and partially contributed to—the rise of the Evangelical movement. Certainty was at a premium in a time of turmoil, and Bill Bright’s Campus Crusade and others found friends and converts. But diversity also meant something more than Blacks, Catholics, and Jews becoming part of America’s tapestry. It also signaled that Baptists and Pentecostals could find comfort and a place within the corridors of power and America’s boardrooms.

The old adage that folks switched denominations as they moved up the corporate ladder lost its currency as Mainline Protestantism receded, and Sunday’s sermon was replaced with a weekend walk in the woods. Over time, the U.S. Air Force Academy would emerge as an attractive destination for evangelicals, and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would become home to two born-again Christians. In 1976, Jimmy Carter publicly professed his faith as he ran for the Oval Office, and George W. Bush’s conversion experience would become far more a help than a hindrance.

Nonetheless, even as Evangelical Christians would come to enjoy their moment of triumph, they too would be forced to confront the reality that a society that places a premium on individualism and self-actualization would have a difficult time coming to grips with Old Time Religion. Markets are godless creatures, and if New England’s Puritans ultimately succumbed to the temptations of the figuratively forbidding forest, there is no reason to assume that later generations would be different.

Rather, regular worship is now the province of married upper-income Americans, be they Republicans or Democrats, but Jones does not discuss this development. On a very real level, SMU families in Texas and their counterparts in New York’s Scarsdale suburbs have more in common than either may immediately realize. Conversely, religion has lost traction at the lower end of the income spectrum, particularly outside of the South.

All of this is transformational. As Jones correctly observes, Protestantism was part of America’s Big Bang, and the first round of migration to the New World coincided with religious developments in England itself. The American Revolution owed a particular debt of gratitude to Protestant Dissenters. Colonial Congregationalists and Presbyterians owed little allegiance to the Crown and Canterbury.

On the other hand, our country’s battles over slavery, Prohibition, civil rights, and the Vietnam War also played out within America’s churches, and those divisions have remained with us; not all wounds heal. As the Rev. Martin Luther King said, “the most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o’clock on Sunday morning.” Although some mega-churches like Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church in Houston are integrated, Lakewood is the exception to the rule. The liberal United Methodist Church and United Church of Christ are also among the least diverse denominations, and their numbers are dwindling.

Still, Jones overstates the death of White Christian America. Loss of primacy of place is not the same thing as extinction. Although the author writes an “obituary” and recites a “benediction” for what he perceives as the passing of white Protestantism, he elides the fact that Christianity remains a force to be reckoned with, even in its lessened state.

Beyond that, The End of White Christian America urges churchgoers to come to terms with modernity, and to embrace diversity in the same manner as corporate America. Jones points to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and its reluctant acceptance of gays in the ranks of Boy Scouts, but he omits any reference to Mormonism’s own personal conservatism and social cohesion—which are born of the Mormon community’s homogeneity and conformity. Voluntary safety nets spring from self-identification with their beneficiaries.

As New York University’s Jonathan Haidt has repeatedly observed, diversity and cohesion seldom go hand-in-hand. In an America where Christianity stands diminished, there is little on the horizon that appears capable of taking its place. From the vantage points of 21st-century America, and two millennia of history, there is no clear solution or replacement in sight.

Lloyd Green is the managing member of Ospreylytics, LLC, a research and analytics firm, was opposition research counsel to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 campaign, and served in the Department of Justice between 1990 and 1992.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 22 comments

22 Responses to Last Days for White Protestants?

For about a year, I have read and read the stories bemoaning identity politics. And yet, identity politics was the role that engaged slavery as a legal enterprise despite its obvious contradiction to both the Declaration and the Constitution.

I certainly think that white protestants ave reason to be concerned. But it was white protestants and Catholics that got this ball rolling — identity politics.

It wasn’t until I entered college that I was informed or reminded being a US citizen was not enough.

I am disappointed in: abortion, same sex marriage, the absence of truth and integrity in our court systems, the growing legalization of mid altering substances, the state of marriage, the threat of not even being able to acknowledge faith in the public square . . . the devastation of mainline faith and practice and the general diminishing impact on in everyday life, the unnecessary wars, etc.

But I would not be overstating that all of this has been at the advocacy of white protestants. If it is true that they have occupied the places of power, and influence, then it must also be on their stead that the issues above rest on them as well.

I would caveat that white Catholic also hold a similar stead.

I guess the real question on the table is what mattered more the faith they claim or the color of their skin.

Indeed. Nor do freedom and equality. This is should be self-evident but apparently it has gone over the heads of those who promote individual autonomy and “self-expression” (love that phrase) while genuflecting at the altar of The Self. It may be only fitting that in 2016 America the two leading presidential candidates appear to be terminal narcissists.

Squaring the circle will only bring a lifetime of frustration and anger. The author is right: there is no solution in sight.

The religious nones might wonder why a solution or replacement is even required. I didn’t reject my Catholic upbringing because of some need for independence or self absorption, I rejected it because it made no sense. Religious folk just don’t want to acknowledge the fact that all their ancient stories of spirits and angels are silly and quite literally fairy tales that many people no longer find believable. Go ahead and think we are all selfish hedonists if it makes you feel better. For me, christianity offers nothing of value beyond some good music, art, and holidays like Christmas.

And let’s not forget all the hateful political rhetoric and violence coming from religion these days. Why would I want to be a part of that?

People keep speaking of the death of Mainline Protestantism. Its also happening with the Catholics. There is a resurgence with the Orthodox Christians and from what I have ready its because “MEN” haven’t stopped going to church, the”MEN” are very active in the church and they haven’t been chased away by various reforms.

Meanwhile there is a Christian genocide in the Middle East of all Christians and there has been a purging of Christianity from western civilization in favor of secularism, diversity and multi-culturalism…which has done nothing but open the door to cultural Marxists, islam and social decay/conflict.

The story that “IS NOT” getting reported is how catholics are rejecting VaticanII and want the Tridentine Mass, the remaining Protestants are rejecting watered down liberal christianity and bridges are being built with the Byzantine (Orthodox) Christians, as well as, the numerous sects being murdered and persecuted in the middle east seeking shelter and protection from other Christians.

Yes, 34% of Christians are not affiliated and growing but those remaining are reknitting Christendom away from a Pope and away from the divisions of the past when Christianity was dominant.

Yes, there is now a sense of urgency as Islam is killing off Christians within their territory and Christians in the rest of the world are being undermined by both Islam and cultural Marxism disquised as secularism.

As Christianity moves further along this process, I would expect Christendom to start to defend its cultural relevance as an alternative to Islam and Secularism just as the French Quebecois became hyper-catholic to defend their cultural relevance apart from the dominant Canadian English culture. I would expect Christianity to start to defend Christendom worldwide as jews defend world jewry and muslims defend Islam across the world.

The steps are being taken but its not a fast process to rebuilt 1500 years of schism, heresy and ecumenical differences but Christendom can reweave itself through grace and forgiveness. Secularism will eventually fall to hedonism, nihilism, collapse and revolution. Islam Sunni and Shia will never reconcile. They have no mechanism to do so. Nor will the jews and muslims ancestral feud between Isaac and Ishail ever be reconciled. There is also no mechanism to do so.

As Christians reweave Christianity and Christendom, the worst thing they could possibly do is to embroil themselves with secularism, Judaism and Islam. Don’t believe the media that they are ascendant and engage. They are all destined to meggido, the tribulation, the battle to end all battles…and the best thing Christians can do is to gather gods children and separate all they can from the forces dragging them to conflict.

bottom line: Christian withdrawl is not an ending. Its a renaissance whose bricks could never have been cast with 1 dominant version of Christianity. The weakeness and humility and threats to all Christians is what will eventually reweave the church back to something probably not seen since the early years of the church where there were many differences and debates but all saw each other as Christians.

“Beyond that, The End of White Christian America urges churchgoers to come to terms with modernity, and to embrace diversity in the same manner as corporate America. Jones points to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and its reluctant acceptance of gays in the ranks of Boy Scouts, but he omits any reference to Mormonism’s own personal conservatism and social cohesion—which are born of the Mormon community’s homogeneity and conformity . . .”

I am not sure what this means – “embrace diversity”. Certainly, no one who actually lens on scripture can embrace modernity” in the same manner as corporate america. The country has had multiple opportunities to embrace their fellow lack citizens, but whether Republican, Independent or Democrat, they have either rejected the notion outright, done so in fits and starts or done so for opportunistic reasons. They have used Christianity to insure separateness or embrace other people of other colors, even non-citizens. Currently under the guise of rescuing Hispanics, and people from the middle east they have been at it again — all cloaked in the charity of Christ. Liberals of course love the abuse of scripture as it suits to fill their ranks.

Now that the election is revealing that those immigrants legal or illegal it has become clear that those newly imported are not so ‘hip’ on christian morality or political inclinations. Suddenly white protestants have themselves on the edges and wondering why.

In their bid to follow Christ’s charity they have embraced unjustified warfare, violating immigration law, holding a wobbly line on homosexual conduct, a whatever line on marriage, barely a hint of a line on relations outside of wedlock, I wouldn’t even speculate the position on drunkenness.

Now christians of various protestant practices on issues where the integrity of faith are in the public domain find themselves having to put their feet down on a long list of compromised practices and breaks from the teachings of christ.

They are now confronted with several realities they once could have taken for granted.

1. even black fundamentalist protestants generally lean democratic

2. that the illegals are not embracing the political leanings that are best represented by Republican ideals

3. That charity has been turned upside down demanding an embrace of that which Christ would reject. And a growing politic that anything other than their view, is “racist”, bigoted, unfeeling and un-Christlike.

This country has always had immigrants and diversity. And have managed to survive as a nation. And while there have been divisions as to culture, faith, language and national origins. The gravity towards being one people have always pulled them together in common cause to the declaration and the constitution and how that worked in building and maintaining the nation – it was the US first above all other considerations. Every new comer despite their adversity sought not only the nation’s promises, long in coming though they were, but also sought to be a citizen of the US. The Italians, Irish, Czechs, Germans, Poles, Spaniards, French, Norwegians, Danes, etc. pressed themselves to learn the language, cultural, laws, rules, that made the country one. Their variance in faith and practice did not prevent that goal, despite the tensions that might have risen about those differences – in general their faiths held so many common pillars of morality the nation could be formed and maintained because of them. Hence the expression, “God, family, country.”

A look at history would indicate that no group was forced to bond despite being deeply diverse as blacks who arrived from a continent in which several hundred cultures and languages existed. And upon their freedom, walking off the plantations they sought but two primary purposes; find family and and prove themselves valuable citizens despite obtaining very little recognition for their efforts, quite the opposite, yet they forged ahead.

I find it a curious case that the one people’s forced to adopt protestant faith and practice would find themselves the out group – even to foreign enemies of the state in which they have fought and died.

On the common cause of faith and practice the Republican party and the “white protestants” which should have had the most to offer as to a common rotted causes are at odds.

It’s not that diversity does not work. It’s on what lines of diversity one chooses to accept sameness. Unfortunately, “white protestants” have found themselves in a double bind having rejected those with whom they should have embraced and and embraced those they should have held at bay.

The answer here is simple, Miss Coulter and others can pretend that some 40 million black people are just stupid. But the reality is that white protestants rejected them — and simply refuse to admit they made a grave error. They are like most people, they eventually took the path of least resistance.

And for white protestants to point an accusatory finger — it’s a tough row as they themselves took the broad road of color discrimination to hoard all that it means to be a US citizen.

A resolve to embrace christ and those that abide to common cause regardless of color while rejecting what christ himself would reject would be a solid place to start.

So that looks to me like 30 plus 29 equals 59 percent, making Christianity the largest Millennial subgroup. Unless one wants to play games with the numbers to achieve a pre-desired answer. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, I guess.

“…urges churchgoers to come to terms with modernity, and to embrace diversity in the same manner as corporate America.”

This approach has been such a dismal failure for Western Christianity for the last 50 years that I can’t believe anyone would think it will still work. How did it work for the Lutherans, Episcopalians and Presbyterians in America? Are they thriving and gaining new members?

Based solely on this review it sounds as if the author is making the common error of equating attendance at a weekly religious ceremony with being Christian. The reality is that many people who attend “church” on Sunday are not Christians and many people who are Christians rarely or never attend Sunday services. It is more likely that what we are seeing on display here is a winnowing out of people who were never Christians to begin with as the social stigma of being an open unbeliever dissipates.

The larger problem is the confusion over what makes one a Christian, an issue which goes to the heart of the Reformation. Being a generally more moral person and showing up on Sundays doesn’t place one in the Kingdom. Instead of worrying about attendance figures, the church should focus more on sharpening our definitions of Christianity rather than fretting over how many cheeks in the seats we can get. Of course that is pretty difficult given the offering plate, professional clergy driven model we operate under but that is a topic for a different day.

Surely, Calvinist Independency was designed for and grew strong in just such a time as this in the 16th C.

The fate of the UCC is sad because it has such a glorious history and is the natural religion for all good right-liberal-constitutional-democratic republicans; but few will shed a tear for Methodism, that half-way high church monstrosity, Presbyterianism, Lutheranism and the RCC. They are the churches of scholastic orthodoxy and the governing class.

Gathered churches, mechanic (lay) preachers and small independent congregations committed to discovering God’s intent through the Geneva Bible and open discussions with their brothers and sisters are all one needs for a satisfying spiritual life. This translates immediately into a satisfying political life.

Mostly white Anabaptists are doing very well in North America & elsewhere. Flourishing actually.
But what difference does skin color make as far as Christianity goes? It originated in the Middle East. St. Augustine & Tertullian were from North Africa. It’s never been just about white folks in America anyway.

The decline of Christianity will come as news to a number of Indian-Americans, who saw 2 Indian-Americans become governors in the old Confederacy, but buried as deep as possibly any hint of otherness. Bobby Jindal could have run as the Rhodes Scholar wunderkid for Louisiana. Instead, he was talking about Christ at every turn. Apparently, Jesus did more for him than his heathen Hindu parents.

In South Carolina, Nikki Haley had no issue with her Punjabi Sikh heritage when she was just a member of the state legislature. But when she ran for governor, all references to Sikhism were removed from her website. Whereas in the past, she would say she and her husband were raising their kids exposed to both cultures, when she was governor is was Jesus 24 x7. After a shooting in a Sikh gurdwara in Wisconsin, she made a lame statement about tolerance. By contrast, Paul Ryan & Scott Walker not only pointed out Sikhs were specifically targeted, they showed up to pay respects.

For those of use raised outside the Judeo-Christian tradition – if Christiniaty is losing its hold, it must be letting go very slowly.

I likewise questioned Jones’s prescription. I think people need places where they can be tribal. In that sense, much of what draws people to church would vanish if church were more diverse.

I grew up in evangelicalism. Even so, I would probably identify as unaffiliated, despite the fact that I still believe the basic theological tenets of Protestantism. For the most part, church attendance is for married people with children. If you don’t fit within that demographic, there’s really no reason to go. That’s because the entire church experience is geared toward that demographic. So, I just stopped going.

Evangelicalism is shrinking because people like me–who didn’t marry and have kids right out of college–stopped attending. In a culture where over half of the adult population is single, that’s to be expected. But church can’t be all things to all people. So, I see no reason why church needs to change, so long as I’m not expected to go.

1. to be a white protestant would encompass of all those who are not Catholics whose faith in Christ is derived largely from scripture, regardless of denomination. The only out groups would be deists, mormons universalists and similar groups. That’s a huge swath of the population.

2. I think there is a lot of salience in how one looks identifying themselves as christians. If one glosses the varying definitions of: doctrinal beliefs, practice, and attendance rates — white protestants are a huge group. Probably most of the population would so identify as either Catholic or Protestant. The nones are most likely nones because of the manner of the question. But if one travels the path of belief in God, belief in a jesus, etc. I think that % would fall apart fairly quickly.

3. Several days ago at looking at the educational stats for evangelicals they are are on par minus but a few % points with most of the population, and above in PhD’s and I think HS graduates. But ignoring the majors by field, they are no less prepared than the general populations who attend HS, Graduate from college with a Bachelors or higher degree.

4. I think God is winnowing and has been since people got the message of the good news. I wouldn’t hazard to guess whether people attending are anymore or any less christian than those attending services. It’s been years since I attended. Despite being conservative, I just began to find the environment unwelcome – especially after 9/11 and the invasions – which I opposed. They have cost the christian traditionalists a lot of credibility. But that’s me. In truth, scripture makes it very clear —
The churches mission is clear give the gospel, make open salavation for the lost and tend to the issues of the flock as laid by Christ and the Apostles. I am choosy about where I attend. I always look for a pastor that will available to me. not an associate pastor – the pastor, I will sit under, deacons and elders — so large denominatios are generally out for me — nonetheless, I have been tasked with being a part – the church is no to cater to my personal wants but that of scripture.

“Don’t forsake the assembly.” Regardless of issues, one is to be connected. So the error lies in me – not the church.

———-

On a further personal note,

I going to challenge the idea that the body of christ is for married people. It is a place for the people of Christ regardless of marital status. I am also single, never married and have no children. And Every place I have ever visited has been loaded with married people and kids. The future of the walk is in such arrangements and I think it’s a natural occurrence for the church to reflect that. But we are to serve one another. And I found myself of great use in such congregations. People with kids have a good many needs and it is not unusual for singles to find themselves meeting them, if they choose. But those congregations serve something else. They serve as the model and models of mentoring for what is assuredly one of God’s purposes in those life — marriage and fruitfulness. And while Paul encouraged singleness, he made it expressly clear that was his opinion and not something coming the Lord. This again is one of those questions about submissiveness, humility and meekness that is provoked by the Holy Spirit, but which our humanness (flesh) fights against. Even as a single person without children – absolutely committed to a celibacy until marriage — I am to belong to a congregation of like minded believers despite the fact that said church is ckocker block full of married couples with screamin’ meem’in kids. And this too – in spite of most of the effort from the leadership honed on supporting the same. In truth this is how church ought to be. I think we underestimate the value of Christ is us to serve and be served for the greater glory.

For the believer, the world is headed where Christ said it is headed. And the believers are to hold fast the narrow road on which he traveled paid and maintains.

Tobin Grant has some interesting pushback on the central thesis of the book.

From the article:

To really understand evangelical politics, you need to start by recognizing their diversity. Large meaningless categories like “white Protestant” aren’t helpful.

Indeed, even evangelicalism is diverse (like other religious traditions). To give one example missing from the book: Pentecostalism. While no author can cover all topics, it was striking that Jones could give a timeline (literally) of evangelicalism in the 20th Century without any mention of Pentecostalism. In fact, I can’t find it discussed anywhere in the book (the closest was a statement linking charismatics to the founding of the Crystal Cathedral–that’s a news to me). To talk about evangelicals and recent politics without including any discussion of Pentecostals ignores a major division within evangelicalism.

There is also racial and ethnic diversity that many denominations (evangelical and mainline) are working toward improving. While President Obama is presented as a threat to White Christian America, Southern Baptists elected its first black president and The Episcopal Church elected its first black leader. The United Methodists are now in full communion with the African Methodist Episcopal Church and others who left because of racism within Methodism. These are few of the ways that leaders with Protestant churches are working against racial and ethnic divisions.

The “Decline of White __________” narratives have been running, old and tired, for years now. Whether gleeful or bemoaning, they are always dull and they always assume too much. Discussing “white” this or “white” that erroneously signifies that the color of one’s skin has even some relevance.

The point in fact is that the only relevance skin color has is within the limited context of our having to deal with racism – the cultural and moral phenomenon of idiots who pretend that one’s skin color has something to do with one’s value. They are wrong that skin color is relevant and their moral influence and persuasiveness must be defeated. But this phenomenon, in and of itself, does not make skin color or being “white” relevant to anything else.

Tradition, orthodoxy, religious unity, cultural homogeneity, conformity, customs and conventions – indeed, the very strength of local community itself – does NOT depend on skin color. Anyone whose identity is bound up in being “white” is guilty of profound moral error. Those of us interested in restoring life, tradition and orthodoxy to the church again ought to dismiss the very idea of “White Christian America.” It is not helpful, neither is it morally meaningful.

Re: Why Christians are divided in two subgroups but “nones” are treated as only one group?

Good point: “nones” come in multiple flavors. There are the hard atheists who are explicitly hostile to religion. The “soft” atheists who do not believe but are not anti-religious. There are the agnostics who give religion little thought. There are the “spiritual but not religious” types– and they shade over into the New Age folk whose various superstitionistic beliefs and practices flirt with religion without quite crystallizing into one.

Pentecostals are evangelicals. While there are various traditions withing the protestant group. It’s hard to deny that “white Protestantism is something unknown. To the extent that the nation segregated out blacks, even protestants, it’s a tough slog to contend that it doesn’t exist. The fact that within that frame several denominations are finally taking on the false distinction of color and turning a corner, doesn’t change the category. The term was originally ‘white anglo-saxson protestant.’

If one takes merely as a categorical distinction, then the frame operates quite well. And what was true for much of the country’s history despite unique practices and belief. Being white anglo-sxon had real force. Based on the article, there is a serious challenge whether that force will survive and those reasons include the comments that challenge the idea.

I am going to continue the press for reality here. A country that legalized enslaving millions of persons on skin color for 150 years and 200 years before the nation’s founding. A practice that created such discord that half of the states broke from the union is is not, cannot pretend that skin color is not a factor because it’s embarrassing. I have not looked lately, but I suspect that our Sunday mornings are as remain one of the most segregated days of the week.

Even the Mormons established the distinctions. Until 1978, a black could never serve in the upper echelons of service.

Th last film that used the phrase “free white and twenty one” as quintessential americana was in the 1940’s. Why pretend to ignore the obvious?

Unfortunately, that is the noose by which liberals are assailing the churches of traditional scriptural understanding, by the neck.

It’s also important to note that the most vehement opponents of those who challenged the WASP assignment were also abolitionist protestants.

_________

corrections;

I’s should have I’d.

And when I commented about being connected. It did not mean one should be connected with a church in error. But finding some place in which to serve is admonished.

I’m a PK boomer, white, so I grew up when religion and politics were not discussed in polite conversation. It was a bit shocking to hear comments about JFK being Catholic and thus not really American or entitled to be president. Mostly this was something from the fringe, the holy rollers, the evangelicalsame.

I grew up in one of the peace churches, so I was a conscience objector at the time of the Vietnam War, like my dad during WWII. So that intersection of faith and politics was familiar, but religion was not a political test. Voting for or against Nixon because he was a Quaker going against Quaker faith and practice was unthinkable. War views were shaped by individual beliefs.

But over time, I saw religion become a political test, a wedge issue. And from the 80s to 2010, intersection of religion and politics corrupted the moral foundation of the religions engaged in politics. The
Protestants largely stayed out of the politics, but not the evangelicals and Catholics.

I find it ironic that JFK was attacked by the religious conservatives for being Catholic, yet today their standard bearers in DC are overwhelmingly Catholic or Jews.

Protestants couldn’t muster the religious-political passion so they lost the young. Evangelicals had the passion that mixed with politics turned many away. Those turned away found they liked the conservative Catholics which limited the politics to the church and the role of Rome.

But, what I describe is one part of American society and culture that those who claim was Christian were merely spinning myths, Jews were another constant in my experience, and they largely stayed out of politics.

Pretending a dynamic does not exist by attacking it or noting its faults is why moving on doesn’t advance actually moving on.

It is tough to admit error. Whether it is Iraq, not attending services, for those who acknowledge scripture or admitting that the country did in fact operate on notions of what constituted a proper political frame.

And to pretend that there was no white ethnic structure that included faith and practice because it is uncomfortable is disingenuous and denies reality. The concern about Pres Kennedy was to his loyalty to the Pope as a religious conviction.

As soon as it became clear that he would take on the Soviets, had no intention of making the Pope or Catholicism some kind of mandate, thought the civil rights movement was a possible communist plot so much so he unleashed the CIA to investigate the matter

WASPS or White Protestants generally fell in line. A wasp need not be a wasp in name only, but by belief and practice.

I suspect His leadership changed the shape of the relations between Catholics and Protestants. Protestants were never going to embrace papacy, but they could make room for Catholics on common political grounds. Pres. Kennedy did not lose the South. He was keenly aware of their politics and power, and he had no intention of allowing color to get in the way of his election. He accommodated publicly white protestant ethos north and south.

Those that constantly call for diversity I usually offer a sardine and onion milkshake.

However when I attend mass I have always noticed it looks like an assembly of the United Nations. There is no diversity, we are all Catholic bound by Catholic Culture, a Uniculture not a multi culture. There are rich and poor, and every race sitting right next to each other.

Many Protestant churches I visited are mono cultures, either by race, class, or politics, this shocked me when I saw it for the first time. In Group preference seemed to be a major part of the Protestant experience, which led me to look at the historical and even theological roots of it at the beginning of Protestantism.
Theologically the differences between denominations can be extremely fine, this indicated an extreme level of discernment. Did this high level of theological discernment translate into a race and class discernment?
Integration doesn’t seem to be enough, since distinctives are constantly made in integrated Protestant churches I noticed. What is going on? ” And people from our black community ” , that never would be said in a Catholic parish.

Catholics find it strange these kinds of divisions, from the early days we never had these issues. Augustine a Catholic bishop was black and from Africa, and he was in communication as an equal with bishops from every nation.
I think the Uniculture of the Roman Empire became the Uniculture of the Catholic Church, the Roman Citizen could be any colour or status just as the Catholic citizen could be any colour or status. Roman culture encompassed any race, Paul was Roman.